Microsoft's shrinking license

With an eye to quelling piracy, Microsoft is making changes to its licensing terms in Windows Vista.

Under the changes, buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the operating system.

The license changes also apply to virtualization: Customers can only transfer the copy of Windows once, including a transfer from one physical machine to a virtual machine, or from a virtual machine on one PC to a virtual machine on another PC.

To find out what people on the street make of it, we asked our Vista Views panel, made up of ordinary readers, this question: The move is designed to help Microsoft battle piracy. But is it too stringent?

---

Brian Scates

I don't mind Microsoft protecting its products from piracy, but I have to draw the line at the point it creates major headaches and inconvenience to legitimate customers. For PC enthusiasts like myself who do frequent overhauls of their systems, limiting installs to two is a serious problem. That kind of licensing would be considered completely unacceptable with any other software product, and I don't know why Microsoft thinks it's OK for Windows.

If they proceed with this licensing, I would expect it to backfire and result in more piracy, not less, as enthusiasts seek ways to circumvent it with hacked copies. Nobody pirates a legitimate copy of Windows anyway, so why punish the people who are actually paying for it? This would certainly put a damper on any enthusiasm I have for Vista. I'm willing to pay for it, but I'm not willing to pay for it more than once.
Brian Scates is the president of Web hosting company Foing.com.

---

Nate Ardle

No. I can't remember when I moved my operating system to a new computer anyway. When I buy a new computer, it always comes with a new operating system. No problem as far as I can see.
Nate Ardle is a minister with an evangelical interdenominational ministry on the campus of the University of Michigan.

---

Jeff Rosado

The new licensing will have a limited effect on most people; however, I believe that tech enthusiasts will be the ones that have the biggest problem with it. While I do understand Microsoft's intent to combat piracy, I think that it could be implemented in a better way.

If someone buys a copy of Windows, they should be able to install it on any single machine at one time, an unlimited number of times--but how to do this in a way that would stymie piracy? Perhaps if they developed a mechanism which would allow a user to uninstall Vista, or deactivate it on one machine, that would generate a special reinstallation/activation key that would be used to install it on a different machine.

As for the virtual machine licenses, I don't think this will have too much of an impact on general consumers, as the majority of people who will be running virtual machines will either be using the Enterprise version of Windows Vista, or will be using a developer's version via MSDN.
Jeff Rosado is the owner of a computer consulting company providing tech support and training to businesses and individuals in Pensacola, Fla.

---

Robert McLaws

Ed Bott and I first brought this up on our blogs, and our analysis has held up, despite efforts by certain pundits to claim otherwise.

I'm really on the fence on this one. On one hand, I can see Microsoft's perspective that most people wouldn't run virtualization on Vista Home Basic anyways, so why worry about a license transfer there? And since XP didn't have the provision on transfers, it was abused profusely by piracy. From their perspective, they're just tightening the screws the same way they did for the security problems.

At the same time, there are a statistically significant number of people that will change motherboards often enough for this to be a serious issue to them. However small a percentage Microsoft thinks that will be, with the installed base they have, it's not an insignificant number of people. And the unfortunate thing for Microsoft is, those are the same people who tend to be influential, and those are the people that will scream the loudest.

Just remember, however, how forgiving Microsoft was over multiprocessor/multicore licensing. With 4, 6, 8-core chips on the horizon, they have made some good decisions, and credit should be given where it is due. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold their feet to the fire where appropriate.

So here's my counter-question: Should transfers be staggered by edition? Meaning that Home Basic would have one, Home Premium would have two, and Ultimate would have five? That would take into account the fact that most regular users won't swap out their motherboard regularly, but most enthusiasts will.
Robert McLaws is an IT consultant, community leader and Vista enthusiast. He has been running Vista enthusiast site Longhornblogs.com since 2002.

---

Joe Rud

Yes, these rules are too stringent. I believe that if a customer buys a retail copy of Windows (or any other software) that they are entitled to move that license around as they feel appropriate, as long as it is only installed on one machine at a time.

I do agree, however, that OEM licenses should be limited to the machine they come with. My reason for this is that the customer is actually paying a lot less than retail for this software.

With a purchase of full-price retail software (several hundred dollars) the user should be allowed to transfer the software as they desire.
Joe Rud is a computer industry professional from from St. Louis Park, Minn.

---

Gary Knigge

I am very concerned about this very aggressive copyright protection scheme. I don't believe it is ethical for Microsoft to make legitimate users suffer in order to make it harder for software pirates. There are just too many scenarios where people will need to install the OS more than twice in the life of the Vista product. In fact, it seems very likely that a large proportion of people will do so.

Clearly, Microsoft has a right to ensure that people using its products have legally acquired the right to do so. But I believe their customers also have the right to reinstall a piece of software as many times as necessary and for as long as they choose to continue to use the product.

As long as they are installing on just one computer, why should it matter to Microsoft if they've had a hard drive failure, purchased a new computer, or just want to install from scratch to eliminate some operating system problems?

I have been beta testing Microsoft Vista for several months. I cannot play a normal DVD movie rented from Netflix on my computer because Microsoft says it can't verify the copyright protection of the (mainstream ATI) video driver. Again, Microsoft is erring on the side of copyright protection rather than the side of trusting its customers.

Microsoft demands that we pay and then pay again. Are we beginning to wonder who the pirates really are? A reasonable company might find a way to protect software licenses that does not interfere with legal fair use by those who have purchased a product. It seems clear that as Windows becomes more and more the standard, Microsoft does not find it necessary to be reasonable. Living under a despot never did feel good.
Gary Knigge is an IT support person at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, specializing in Windows desktop support for faculty and staff.

---

Stewart Retsis

Far too stringent. If my computer needs formatted more than once, then I'm up a creek without a paddle.

As for hurting the sales figures, no chance--it's Microsoft, after all.
Stewart Retsis is a normal PC user who lives in Thurso, Scotland.

---

Kevin Faaborg

I think this change is WAY too strict. I can't change my motherboard, or RAM or anything else. Or how about a computer crash? I'm only allowed to have my computer crash once? Please tell me you have a way of controlling how often my computer crashes, Microsoft, and maybe I'll invest that money into Vista, but we all know this is no perfect world.

With this main part in mind, my likelihood of purchasing Vista has dramatically dropped. In fact, at this point, I'm considering instead of bothering going to Vista, to instead just switch to OSX and be done with it. Microsoft has released so many things in regards to Vista that changes how an average user can use Windows, that I'm starting to reconsider my platform in general and that maybe I have invested enough money into Microsoft.

Microsoft, please don't make this true, or this may be the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of users.
Kevin Faaborg works in basic hardware and software guidance for a large financial corporation, but he has experience in more computer sales-based jobs.

---

Wayne Sharpe

Yes, I believe this is too stringent. People should be allowed to transfer to as many different computers as they wish provided that they have WIPED the past computer before they do the transfer.
Wayne Sharpe is based in Ontario, Canada.

---

David Colon

My only major concern is if this applies when you upgrade your components such as your hard drive or video card, etc. as I have heard happens to others in XP where they had to reactivate their copy. As long as this isn't the case, then I really don't care about this license transfer thing. This would be the only way it would affect me and I'm hoping and expecting that this will be a nonissue.

As for the rest of the e-population that reads CNET.com: I'm willing to bet that this probably won't affect 95 percent of you. The other 5 percent are the ones that don't really respect the time and effort it takes to make an OS of this magnitude and feel that it's their right to be able to install it on as many machines as they would like. This is against the law not only for Microsoft's software but for any other pay software as well (unless otherwise noted in the EULA).
David Colon is a software developer in the QA department of a medium-sized government Web site application development company.

---

Wallace Wang

While Microsoft has the right to protect their software anyway they can, it's definitely a hassle for legitimate customers. Still, most people are just going to get Windows "for free" on their new PCs so the only people buying retail copies of Windows will likely be people building their own PCs.

In that case, restricting Windows to a single transfer is definitely too stringent. Legitimate customers should be able to transfer their copy of Windows to as many machines as they want for their own use as they keep upgrading to newer and faster machines, but how can Microsoft verify this? They can't, which is why they're resorting to such draconian measures.

If you buy a retail copy of Windows Vista knowing this restriction exists, then you can't complain. The answer is simple. Vote with your wallet by either buying Vista anyway and getting stuck with this restriction, or don't buy Vista and use Linux instead. All of Microsoft's antipiracy tactics have inconvenienced me long enough. That's why I've dumped Windows and moved to Mac OS X. Whether it's a "better" operating system is debatable, but it's just another alternative for people who don't want to put up with Microsoft's nuisances any more.
Wallace Wang is a freelance computer journalist and author whose books include "Microsoft Office for Dummies" and "Steal This Computer Book."